Someone linked to this with reference to what happened to PP in Spain - if parties aren't careful they end up being the default choice of no-one. So in the case of the Tories Brexit takes the right wing, Chuk the centralists...
The PP had a poor night but were still second, the Brexit Party are not far right like Vox, UKIP are now more.like Vox, they just want Brexit delivered
“They just want Brexit delivered” but they think people who voted to deliver Brexit have betrayed it. You shouldn’t validate their messaging if you want to beat them, not join them.
It's an election, must be time for a new Tory plan to tax the elderly . I'm not especially opposed to the idea myself, but four days before an election an unwise moment to start a cross-party debate.
Given the timing, either Damian Green is an idiot or this is deliberate.
It's an election, must be time for a new Tory plan to tax the elderly . I'm not especially opposed to the idea myself, but four days before an election an unwise moment to start a cross-party debate.
The days of the Tory Party bring low tax are long gone. They are just a Labour lite tax and spend Party now. Given how much money is wasted in the public sector, they would be far better off trying to reform some of that and means testing benefits rather than trying to bribe the electorate with their own money and then taxing them so that the poorest are worse off. A lot of people give their WF allowance to charity.
NHS wastes billions on litigation, locums, scrapping drugs it has paid for, and is rife with too many overmanned and expensive management layers. Changing some of that would solve the funding for social care without any need for more tax.
Lowest management costs of any Healthcare system. Top worldwide in terms of VFM. You mean that NHS.
The NHS which gave us. Mid Staffs, Liverpool Care Pathway, Morecambe Bay, Southern Health and Gosport; which spends £ 1.5 bn pa on the NHS Litigation Authority and more than double on locum costs - that the one. Funny definition of VFM you’ve got.
No the NHS isn't perfect. Odd, perhaps. However it's run by fallible human beings and while those in and around it generally do their best, sometimes things go wrong. And again, oddly, more things seem to have gone awry since the introduction of 'commercial type' management and systems.
Some do their best, some don’t. The NHS staff aren’t all angels. Quality of care is far too variable. I don’t think the introduction has contributed much to either solving or curing the problems in the NHS myself. The problem is people expect it do everything for them for free (at the point of delivery). Expecting cancer care, leukaemia etc on the NHS is one thing. Diabetes is the biggest cost however which is at least partially lifestyle, as is Cosmetic surgery, drunkenness etc. No reason why they should be available on the NHS.
PP, which tacked to the hard right in response to Vox and talked openly about going into coalition with them, has lost half its seats and half its vote in the Spanish election. A proportion went to Vox (led by ex-PP politicians), but a good chunk went to C’s. Significantly, PP got 33% of the vote in the 2016 general election, while PP and Vix combined got just 27% in 2019. You won’t read this in the UK press or hear it on the BBC because they’re all looking for a Franco narrative, but the hard right went backwards in Spain yesterday. And PSOE - radical social democrats, not Corbyn socialists - won its first national election since 2008.
The BBC seem to now have a weirdly fixed narrative on these type of elections, ie a breakthrough for which ever far right freakshow has bloomed forth, in this case Vox who came a mighty fifth. Their report last night (which seemed to contain palpable disappointment) signed off by telling us how let down & angry those who voted for right-wing parties would feel. It's a right bugger, that democracy lark!
The BBC has its story and is going to stick to it. Why do any research when you can waffle on about Franco and bullfights?
Isn’t it nonetheless concerning that a far right party went from 0 to 10% in a country which did not, since the demise of Franco, have such a party?
Perhaps there is a touch of complacency in the reaction?
Yep - and it's more interesting to see why that occurred (hence my link to that Spectator article below). With PP in opposition it seems that as it's become more obvious general election after general election that it could not get back into power, the PP has lost votes. And those votes have split 3 ways (30% to the right and 30% or so to the centre).
So the question is what will happen to the Tories when they next lose power especially if Brexit isn't finalised (and it won't be as we haven't even finished phase 1 yet).
It's an election, must be time for a new Tory plan to tax the elderly . I'm not especially opposed to the idea myself, but four days before an election an unwise moment to start a cross-party debate.
The days of the Tory Party bring low tax are long gone. They are just a Labour lite tax and spend Party now. Given how much money is wasted in the public sector, they would be far better off trying to reform some of that and means testing benefits rather than trying to bribe the electorate with their own money and then taxing them so that the poorest are worse off. A lot of people give their WF allowance to charity.
NHS wastes billions on litigation, locums, scrapping drugs it has paid for, and is rife with too many overmanned and expensive management layers. Changing some of that would solve the funding for social care without any need for more tax.
Lowest management costs of any Healthcare system. Top worldwide in terms of VFM. You mean that NHS.
The NHS which gave us. Mid Staffs, Liverpool Care Pathway, Morecambe Bay, Southern Health and Gosport; which spends £ 1.5 bn pa on the NHS Litigation Authority and more than double on locum costs - that the one. Funny definition of VFM you’ve got.
No the NHS isn't perfect. Odd, perhaps. However it's run by fallible human beings and while those in and around it generally do their best, sometimes things go wrong. And again, oddly, more things seem to have gone awry since the introduction of 'commercial type' management and systems.
Either that or things that go awry are far more likely to be reported on now than was the case 25 years ago...
It's an election, must be time for a new Tory plan to tax the elderly . I'm not especially opposed to the idea myself, but four days before an election an unwise moment to start a cross-party debate.
The days of the Tory Party bring low tax are long gone. They are just a Labour lite tax and spend Party now. Given how much money is wasted in the public sector, they would be far better off trying to reform some of that and means testing benefits rather than trying to bribe the electorate with their own money and then taxing them so that the poorest are worse off. A lot of people give their WF allowance to charity.
NHS wastes billions on litigation, locums, scrapping drugs it has paid for, and is rife with too many overmanned and expensive management layers. Changing some of that would solve the funding for social care without any need for more tax.
Lowest management costs of any Healthcare system. Top worldwide in terms of VFM. You mean that NHS.
The NHS which gave us. Mid Staffs, Liverpool Care Pathway, Morecambe Bay, Southern Health and Gosport; which spends £ 1.5 bn pa on the NHS Litigation Authority and more than double on locum costs - that the one. Funny definition of VFM you’ve got.
No the NHS isn't perfect. Odd, perhaps. However it's run by fallible human beings and while those in and around it generally do their best, sometimes things go wrong. And again, oddly, more things seem to have gone awry since the introduction of 'commercial type' management and systems.
Some do their best, some don’t. The NHS staff aren’t all angels. Quality of care is far too variable. I don’t think the introduction has contributed much to either solving or curing the problems in the NHS myself. The problem is people expect it do everything for them for free (at the point of delivery). Expecting cancer care, leukaemia etc on the NHS is one thing. Diabetes is the biggest cost however which is at least partially lifestyle, as is Cosmetic surgery, drunkenness etc. No reason why they should be available on the NHS.
No I wasn't always an 'angel'. Nor were/are my colleagues. We have off-days, days when we're worried by what else is going on in our lives. And your first example, diabetes, is a lot more complex than 'lifestyle'. And treating people for it keeps them in the workforce for much longer.
It's an election, must be time for a new Tory plan to tax the elderly . I'm not especially opposed to the idea myself, but four days before an election an unwise moment to start a cross-party debate.
The days of the Tory Party bring low tax are long gone. They are just a Labour lite tax and spend Party now. Given how much money is wasted in the public sector, they would be far better off trying to reform some of that and means testing benefits rather than trying to bribe the electorate with their own money and then taxing them so that the poorest are worse off. A lot of people give their WF allowance to charity.
NHS wastes billions on litigation, locums, scrapping drugs it has paid for, and is rife with too many overmanned and expensive management layers. Changing some of that would solve the funding for social care without any need for more tax.
Lowest management costs of any Healthcare system. Top worldwide in terms of VFM. You mean that NHS.
The NHS which gave us. Mid Staffs, Liverpool Care Pathway, Morecambe Bay, Southern Health and Gosport; which spends £ 1.5 bn pa on the NHS Litigation Authority and more than double on locum costs - that the one. Funny definition of VFM you’ve got.
No the NHS isn't perfect. Odd, perhaps. However it's run by fallible human beings and while those in and around it generally do their best, sometimes things go wrong. And again, oddly, more things seem to have gone awry since the introduction of 'commercial type' management and systems.
Either that or things that go awry are far more likely to be reported on now than was the case 25 years ago...
It's an election, must be time for a new Tory plan to tax the elderly . I'm not especially opposed to the idea myself, but four days before an election an unwise moment to start a cross-party debate.
The days of the Tory Party bring low tax are long gone. They are just a Labour lite tax and spend Party now. Given how much money is wasted in the public sector, they would be far better off trying to reform some of that and means testing benefits rather than trying to bribe the electorate with their own money and then taxing them so that the poorest are worse off. A lot of people give their WF allowance to charity.
NHS wastes billions on litigation, locums, scrapping drugs it has paid for, and is rife with too many overmanned and expensive management layers. Changing some of that would solve the funding for social care without any need for more tax.
Lowest management costs of any Healthcare system. Top worldwide in terms of VFM. You mean that NHS.
No the NHS isn't perfect. Odd, perhaps. However it's run by fallible human beings and while those in and around it generally do their best, sometimes things go wrong. And again, oddly, more things seem to have gone awry since the introduction of 'commercial type' management and systems.
Some do their best, some don’t. The NHS staff aren’t all angels. Quality of care is far too variable. I don’t think the introduction has contributed much to either solving or curing the problems in the NHS myself. The problem is people expect it do everything for them for free (at the point of delivery). Expecting cancer care, leukaemia etc on the NHS is one thing. Diabetes is the biggest cost however which is at least partially lifestyle, as is Cosmetic surgery, drunkenness etc. No reason why they should be available on the NHS.
No I wasn't always an 'angel'. Nor were/are my colleagues. We have off-days, days when we're worried by what else is going on in our lives. And your first example, diabetes, is a lot more complex than 'lifestyle'. And treating people for it keeps them in the workforce for much longer.
Everyone has off days but not all off days cost lives and off days is no excuse for the lack of basic care at places like MidStaffs and Liverpool Care Pathway. Sure, diabetes is complex but you can’t seriously be ignoring the link between some types and lifestyle.
PP, which tacked to the hard right in response to Vox and talked openly about going into coalition with them, has lost half its seats and half its vote in the Spanish election. A proportion went to Vox (led by ex-PP politicians), but a good chunk went to C’s. Significantly, PP got 33% of the vote in the 2016 general election, while PP and Vix combined got just 27% in 2019. You won’t read this in the UK press or hear it on the BBC because they’re all looking for a Franco narrative, but the hard right went backwards in Spain yesterday. And PSOE - radical social democrats, not Corbyn socialists - won its first national election since 2008.
The BBC seem to now have a weirdly fixed narrative on these type of elections, ie a breakthrough for which ever far right freakshow has bloomed forth, in this case Vox who came a mighty fifth. Their report last night (which seemed to contain palpable disappointment) signed off by telling us how let down & angry those who voted for right-wing parties would feel. It's a right bugger, that democracy lark!
The BBC has its story and is going to stick to it. Why do any research when you can waffle on about Franco and bullfights?
Isn’t it nonetheless concerning that a far right party went from 0 to 10% in a country which did not, since the demise of Franco, have such a party?
Perhaps there is a touch of complacency in the reaction?
Yep - and it's more interesting to see why that occurred (hence my link to that Spectator article below). With PP in opposition it seems that as it's become more obvious general election after general election that it could not get back into power, the PP has lost votes. And those votes have split 3 ways (30% to the right and 30% or so to the centre).
So the question is what will happen to the Tories when they next lose power especially if Brexit isn't finalised (and it won't be as we haven't even finished phase 1 yet).
On the national vote the centre right parties virtually matched the centre left in votes. The system and fragmentation beat them. A Psoe/Ciudadanos coalition would be the best bulwark again st the nationalists, Vox and for the economy. Unfortunately it won't happen and Sanchez will be pulled to the left by Podemos and messed up by Catalonia and Basque nationalists. Not good for the country or its economy.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
No - the young are already hit with enough things that the old got for free (Student loans is just 1 example). Something that cost the old a bit of money doesn't seem that bad really.
And equally everyone will be old eventually and so will eventually pay it....
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
That’s the argument that leads to who else but the sick should pay for the cost of curing the illness. The argument that the elderly should pay for their own care is fine but why does that apply to the elderly and not also to other items of spend - NHS, tuition fees which Labour seem keen to abolish, housing where they seem keen to bring back council housing etc Even on social care, following your line of argument means the elderly should pay their own state pension. My NIC went to pay the state pension of my parents and grandparents.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
No - the young are already hit with enough things that thesome old got for free (Student loans is just 1 example). Something that cost the old a bit of money doesn't seem that bad really.
And equally everyone will be old eventually and so will eventually pay it....
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
That’s the argument that leads to who else but the sick should pay for the cost of curing the illness. The argument that the elderly should pay for their own care is fine but why does that apply to the elderly and not also to other items of spend - NHS, tuition fees which Labour seem keen to abolish, housing where they seem keen to bring back council housing etc Even on social care, following your line of argument means the elderly should pay their own state pension. My NIC went to pay the state pension of my parents and grandparents.
I don't think it should be just the old who pay. Taxation is on everyone and if taxes have to rise to pay for social care, so be it. But the burden of that taxation should be carefully thought about. Currently older people are exempt from certain taxes and receive benefits even when they are wealthy. I see no good reason why, if taxes have to rise, the old should continue to receive benefits when they are wealthy or be exempt from those taxes.
I do also think that as part of these changes the young should understand that it makes sense to make as much provision as they can for their old age and that, if you have lots of wealth when you are old, you should not expect those who are poorer than you to pay more simply so that your wealth can be preserved for your children.
Savings for a rainy day should be used when those rainy days come.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
And it's a vital step toward harmonising tax and NI, which would save a lot of admin
It's pretty unanswerable as a long term proposition although it would be economically painful initially. If you visit countries like Sweden or the Netherlands you see a tantalising vision of the kind of benign social democratic future Scotland could enjoy if it was freed from the dead hand of English nationalist nostalgia and stale Thatcherism that passes for politics South of the border. I might even return home from London if I can persuade my other half to put up with the weather. I'll certainly be glad to get my European passport back.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
That’s the argument that leads to who else but the sick should pay for the cost of curing the illness. The argument that the elderly should pay for their own care is fine but why does that apply to the elderly and not also to other items of spend - NHS, tuition fees which Labour seem keen to abolish, housing where they seem keen to bring back council housing etc Even on social care, following your line of argument means the elderly should pay their own state pension. My NIC went to pay the state pension of my parents and grandparents.
The demographics have changed, and the proportion of wealth owned by the elderly has changed. NIC from working people is no longer enough to sustain the cost of the pensioner group. There are now many more elderly people with significant assets who live into their 80s and 90s than before, which is great and we should celebrate that achievement. But to not expect that group to contribute more than a previous generation who would have tended to die a decade earlier often in poverty is quite strange.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
That’s the argument that leads to who else but the sick should pay for the cost of curing the illness. The argument that the elderly should pay for their own care is fine but why does that apply to the elderly and not also to other items of spend - NHS, tuition fees which Labour seem keen to abolish, housing where they seem keen to bring back council housing etc Even on social care, following your line of argument means the elderly should pay their own state pension. My NIC went to pay the state pension of my parents and grandparents.
I don't think it should be just the old who pay. Taxation is on everyone and if taxes have to rise to pay for social care, so be it. But the burden of that taxation should be carefully thought about. Currently older people are exempt from certain taxes and receive benefits even when they are wealthy. I see no good reason why, if taxes have to rise, the old should continue to receive benefits when they are wealthy or be exempt from those taxes.
I do also think that as part of these changes the young should understand that it makes sense to make as much provision as they can for their old age and that, if you have lots of wealth when you are old, you should not expect those who are poorer than you to pay more simply so that your wealth can be preserved for your children.
Savings for a rainy day should be used when those rainy days come.
Clearly you do think the just the elderly should pay for their own social care otherwise you wouldn’t have asked the question. Social care is currently paid out of general taxation for those who need state provision. Why change that and leave everything else unchanged.
Thinking carefully about the burden of taxation and indeed, the role of the state, is perfectly proper and appropriate. Tax is largely based on income not age though so why change.
I have no problem with people using their savings or pensions or even houses to pay for a rainy day but it’s tough for many people to save with the role of the state unchanged and the tax burden on indirect taxes exceeding pay rises - and that’s before you get Labour’s wish list of abolishing tuition fees, huge extension of council housing etc
I can read this sympathetically, and were I scottish I might be tempted. But, as with Brexit, imagining being in a different place is painfully inadequate if you haven't given any thought to the journey. The Scots have considered many of the issues, but the challenges are surely more intractable still.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
That’s the argument that leads to who else but the sick should pay for the cost of curing the illness. The argument that the elderly should pay for their own care is fine but why does that apply to the elderly and not also to other items of spend - NHS, tuition fees which Labour seem keen to abolish, housing where they seem keen to bring back council housing etc Even on social care, following your line of argument means the elderly should pay their own state pension. My NIC went to pay the state pension of my parents and grandparents.
The demographics have changed, and the proportion of wealth owned by the elderly has changed. NIC from working people is no longer enough to sustain the cost of the pensioner group. There are now many more elderly people with significant assets who live into their 80s and 90s than before, which is great and we should celebrate that achievement. But to not expect that group to contribute more than a previous generation who would have tended to die a decade earlier often in poverty is quite strange.
The demographics have changed but the more basic problems are that productivity has stalled and GDP per capita hasn’t kept pace.
Why penalise just the elderly though who paid for their parents and grandparents. If you want to look at the role of the state, that’s fine, but an eclectic attack on the old who no longer earn is probably not.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
No - the young are already hit with enough things that thesome old got for free (Student loans is just 1 example). Something that cost the old a bit of money doesn't seem that bad really.
And equally everyone will be old eventually and so will eventually pay it....
Fixed that for your example.
Bus fares, heating (winter allowance, BBC licence fee)..
It's an election, must be time for a new Tory plan to tax the elderly . I'm not especially opposed to the idea myself, but four days before an election an unwise moment to start a cross-party debate.
NHS wastes billions on litigation, locums, scrapping drugs it has paid for, and is rife with too many overmanned and expensive management layers. Changing some of that would solve the funding for social care without any need for more tax.
Lowest management costs of any Healthcare system. Top worldwide in terms of VFM. You mean that NHS.
No the NHS isn't perfect. Odd, perhaps. However it's run by fallible human beings and while those in and around it generally do their best, sometimes things go wrong. And again, oddly, more things seem to have gone awry since the introduction of 'commercial type' management and systems.
Some do their best, some don’t. The NHS staff aren’t all angels. Quality of care is far too variable. I don’t think the introduction has contributed much to either solving or curing the problems in the NHS myself. The problem is people expect it do everything for them for free (at the point of delivery). Expecting cancer care, leukaemia etc on the NHS is one thing. Diabetes is the biggest cost however which is at least partially lifestyle, as is Cosmetic surgery, drunkenness etc. No reason why they should be available on the NHS.
No I wasn't always an 'angel'. Nor were/are my colleagues. We have off-days, days when we're worried by what else is going on in our lives. And your first example, diabetes, is a lot more complex than 'lifestyle'. And treating people for it keeps them in the workforce for much longer.
Everyone has off days but not all off days cost lives and off days is no excuse for the lack of basic care at places like MidStaffs and Liverpool Care Pathway. Sure, diabetes is complex but you can’t seriously be ignoring the link between some types and lifestyle.
Of course Mid Staffs was dreadful, and whistle-blowers need to be taken more notice of. One of the major mistakes of the Lansley reforms was to take health promotion out of the hands of the NHS and give it back to Local Government.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
And it's a vital step toward harmonising tax and NI, which would save a lot of admin
That proposal has been in every Chancellor’s “Too Difficult” pile since at least Geoffrey Howe. One day, the inhabitant of No.11 will have the guts to just get on with it.
I've not been following threads here very closely of late due being out and about with the local election campaign (Lib Dems). It's been fascinating to be involved day after day - something possible only due to being signed off work for a protracted period with depression - and it's been a generally positive experience whether we win or lose the seats I've been helping out in. I can quite see why some people get addicted to this kind of thing.
I can read this sympathetically, and were I scottish I might be tempted. But, as with Brexit, imagining being in a different place is painfully inadequate if you haven't given any thought to the journey. The Scots have considered many of the issues, but the challenges are surely more intractable still.
Perhaps it's more that (many) Scots are pretty sure they want to be in the same place while many English have decided they want to be somewhere different (albeit that somewhere different may be 1953)? There's no doubt that there are challenges whichever way one looks.
Lowest management costs of any Healthcare system. Top worldwide in terms of VFM. You mean that NHS.
No the NHS isn't perfect. Odd, perhaps. However it's run by fallible human beings and while those in and around it generally do their best, sometimes things go wrong. And again, oddly, more things seem to have gone awry since the introduction of 'commercial type' management and systems.
Some do their best, some don’t. The NHS staff aren’t all angels. Quality of care is far too variable. I don’t think the introduction has contributed much to either solving or curing the problems in the NHS myself. The problem is people expect it do everything for them for free (at the point of delivery). Expecting cancer care, leukaemia etc on the NHS is one thing. Diabetes is the biggest cost however which is at least partially lifestyle, as is Cosmetic surgery, drunkenness etc. No reason why they should be available on the NHS.
No I wasn't always an 'angel'. Nor were/are my colleagues. We have off-days, days when we're worried by what else is going on in our lives. And your first example, diabetes, is a lot more complex than 'lifestyle'. And treating people for it keeps them in the workforce for much longer.
Everyone has off days but not all off days cost lives and off days is no excuse for the lack of basic care at places like MidStaffs and Liverpool Care Pathway. Sure, diabetes is complex but you can’t seriously be ignoring the link between some types and lifestyle.
Of course Mid Staffs was dreadful, and whistle-blowers need to be taken more notice of. One of the major mistakes of the Lansley reforms was to take health promotion out of the hands of the NHS and give it back to Local Government.
Agree that MidStaffs was a disgrace and that Lansley was a disaster, although not for the reasons you state. The question now is what to do about the NHS and how should it be funded.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
That’s the argument that leads to who else but the sick should pay for the cost of curing the illness. The argument that the elderly should pay for their own care is fine but why does that apply to the elderly and not also to other items of spend - NHS, tuition fees which Labour seem keen to abolish, housing where they seem keen to bring back council housing etc Even on social care, following your line of argument means the elderly should pay their own state pension. My NIC went to pay the state pension of my parents and grandparents.
The demographics have changed, and the proportion of wealth owned by the elderly has changed. NIC from working people is no longer enough to sustain the cost of the pensioner group. There are now many more elderly people with significant assets who live into their 80s and 90s than before, which is great and we should celebrate that achievement. But to not expect that group to contribute more than a previous generation who would have tended to die a decade earlier often in poverty is quite strange.
The demographics have changed but the more basic problems are that productivity has stalled and GDP per capita hasn’t kept pace.
Why penalise just the elderly though who paid for their parents and grandparents. If you want to look at the role of the state, that’s fine, but an eclectic attack on the old who no longer earn is probably not.
It is not about penalising the elderly at all. It is reducing the number of favourable tax and financial advantages the elderly currently have. The triple lock for example is mathematically unsustainable, if it ran for ever all the wealth in the country would end up with the elderly as it protects them each year from ever getting a lower share whilst in some years they get an increase. It was a great policy when it came out but it has run its course now.
Similarly tax on free tv licenses, winter fuel allowances etc are not penalising the elderly, they would simply lead to the same benefit for the average to poorer pensioners, and still a reduced benefit for richer pensioners compared to the working population.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
No - the young are already hit with enough things that thesome old got for free (Student loans is just 1 example). Something that cost the old a bit of money doesn't seem that bad really.
And equally everyone will be old eventually and so will eventually pay it....
Fixed that for your example.
Bus fares, heating (winter allowance, BBC licence fee)..
To be fair, baby boomers - and that's who this is about - haven't got their free TV tax bribe yet.
It’s amazing how quickly things have gone from “this a proxy referendum” to “the polls are wrong”.
If around 70% of people don't vote it can hardly be described as a referendum on anything.
If UKIP/Farage get 30% on a 30% turnout then it means about 10% of voters are very upset about Brexit but we know that already.
I honestly can't see the Euro elections telling us anything we don't already know
Except that I would have expected people who care strongly about the issue on both sides to turn out, leaving the majority who don't care that much to stay at home. As such it will be a useful guage of both how many people do care and in which direction. The confusing bit will be making sense of those who waste their votes on Tory and Labour.
His excuse reason for not standing in Peterborough is that he needs to show his new MEPs the ropes in Brussels. Not an indication he's keen for us to leave any time soon.
Proper disclosure of all relevant & potentially relevant evidence is absolutely essential to fair trials (not just in rape cases). Problems with this go to the heart of many miscarriages of justice, such as the Guildford 4, the Kiszko case etc. So much evidence is contained in social media that it is essential that it be examined & revealed, where necessary.
There are two issues: (1) do the police have the resources & the will to examine & assess the material properly, even when they have it? Often they don't & are not good at doing it, even when they try. This is an issue of resources, training& understanding. (2) Do they get hold of the material in the first place? Sometimes they don't try & the argument now being made that they shouldn't because it would be so unfair & unkind to the victim is pathetic, sentimental nonsense.
Until someone is convicted, they are innocent. Assuming that they are guilty because of the nature of the offence & therefore refusing to inspect, let alone disclose, potentially relevant evidence is quite wrong. It is not the victim who brings the case. It's the state. And the state does so after a proper investigation into all the relevant evidence. Trying to stop that investigation on the grounds that examination of the evidence might be distressing is absolutely the wrong way round. An investigation should not be limited on the grounds of distress. It is giving a greater importance to the possible distress of a victim than to the distress of someone wrongly convicted of a very serious offence.
The issues re the possible misuse of a victim's previous sexual history etc are ones which can be addressed (and have been) by rules limiting the use of such material, unless the judge rules such evidence relevant. Any competent investigator should know how to distinguish between material which is confidential but potentially relevant & that which is confidential and completely irrelevant. But that has to be a decision for the investigator to make not the alleged victim.
I find it very worrying that some are seeking to limit the ability of investigators to investigate serious crimes properly, thereby risking such crimes either not being investigated at all or miscarriages of justice.
Misplaced sentimentality & wailing about one's feelings are a bar to good decision-making & good governance. Trouble is we have forgotten how appalling the consequences of miscarriages of justice are, for all concerned, those wrongly convicted, the victims who do not get justice & our belief in the rule of law, so we think that what look like technical issues over disclosure can just be ignored in favour of making some particular group feel better.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
If we want to tackle intergenerational fairness, or unfairness, then the older generation is going to have to pay its fair share.
There was a time when the older generation took pride in creating greater opportunity for younger people. Now they seem to be telling them to p*ss off and fend for themselves.
Until someone is convicted, they are innocent. Assuming that they are guilty because of the nature of the offence & therefore refusing to inspect, let alone disclose, potentially relevant evidence is quite wrong. It is not the victim who brings the case. It's the state. And the state does so after a proper investigation into all the relevant evidence. Trying to stop that investigation on the grounds that examination of the evidence might be distressing is absolutely the wrong way round. An investigation should not be limited on the grounds of distress. It is giving a greater importance to the possible distress of a victim than to the distress of someone wrongly convicted of a very serious offence.
The issues re the possible misuse of a victim's previous sexual history etc are ones which can be addressed (and have been) by rules limiting the use of such material, unless the judge rules such evidence relevant. Any competent investigator should know how to distinguish between material which is confidential but potentially relevant & that which is confidential and completely irrelevant. But that has to be a decision for the investigator to make not the alleged victim.
I find it very worrying that some are seeking to limit the ability of investigators to investigate serious crimes properly, thereby risking such crimes either not being investigated at all or miscarriages of justice.
Misplaced sentimentality & wailing about one's feelings are a bar to good decision-making & good governance. Trouble is we have forgotten how appalling the consequences of miscarriages of justice are, for all concerned, those wrongly convicted, the victims who do not get justice & our belief in the rule of law, so we think that what look like technical issues over disclosure can just be ignored in favour of making some particular group feel better.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
If we want to tackle intergenerational fairness, or unfairness, then the older generation is going to have to pay its fair share.
Didn't they pay their fair share while they worked? It's not like they're asylum seekers getting benefits for free.
And let the younger generation learn to save rather than blowing their money on gadgets and partying!
I don't think it should be just the old who pay. Taxation is on everyone and if taxes have to rise to pay for social care, so be it. But the burden of that taxation should be carefully thought about. Currently older people are exempt from certain taxes and receive benefits even when they are wealthy. I see no good reason why, if taxes have to rise, the old should continue to receive benefits when they are wealthy or be exempt from those taxes.
I do also think that as part of these changes the young should understand that it makes sense to make as much provision as they can for their old age and that, if you have lots of wealth when you are old, you should not expect those who are poorer than you to pay more simply so that your wealth can be preserved for your children.
Savings for a rainy day should be used when those rainy days come.
Clearly you do think the just the elderly should pay for their own social care otherwise you wouldn’t have asked the question. Social care is currently paid out of general taxation for those who need state provision. Why change that and leave everything else unchanged.
Thinking carefully about the burden of taxation and indeed, the role of the state, is perfectly proper and appropriate. Tax is largely based on income not age though so why change.
I have no problem with people using their savings or pensions or even houses to pay for a rainy day but it’s tough for many people to save with the role of the state unchanged and the tax burden on indirect taxes exceeding pay rises - and that’s before you get Labour’s wish list of abolishing tuition fees, huge extension of council housing etc
I asked the question because I wanted to question the assumption that the old should somehow be exempted from taxes applying to others (eg NI) or get benefits that others don't, to see whether the arguments for these things stand up.
Putting a question doesn't mean that it reflects my views. It's as much, if not more, about testing what someone else says. There are too many unquestioned assumptions in public debate about these matters, IMO.
His excuse reason for not standing in Peterborough is that he needs to show his new MEPs the ropes in Brussels. Not an indication he's keen for us to leave any time soon.
You only have to turn up for 40% of the votes, take your own keg of bitter with you and always check your wheel nuts.
Sri Lanka has banned face coverings in public, following a spate of suicide attacks on Easter Sunday that killed at least 250 people and injured hundreds.
President Maithripala Sirisena said he was using an emergency law to impose the restriction from Monday.
Any face garment which "hinders identification" will be banned to ensure security, his office said. Muslim leaders criticised the move.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
If we want to tackle intergenerational fairness, or unfairness, then the older generation is going to have to pay its fair share.
Didn't they pay their fair share while they worked? It's not like they're asylum seekers getting benefits for free.
And let the younger generation learn to save rather than blowing their money on gadgets and partying!
I'm afraid that you've not tapped the zeitgeist. One doesn't have alleged victims, one has victims. An assumption of guilt and innocence is baked in. My understanding is that the CPS has proved unwilling to drop allegations through lack of beyond reasonable doubt evidence for statistical reasons. That they appear to have systematically failed to disclose evidence (despite the self-serving denials of the last DPP) hardly makes one think that they have a developed understanding of right or wrong and/or duty to the court.
It's pretty unanswerable as a long term proposition although it would be economically painful initially. If you visit countries like Sweden or the Netherlands you see a tantalising vision of the kind of benign social democratic future Scotland could enjoy if it was freed from the dead hand of English nationalist nostalgia and stale Thatcherism that passes for politics South of the border. I might even return home from London if I can persuade my other half to put up with the weather. I'll certainly be glad to get my European passport back.
You might find that the politics of the Netherlands and Sweden are no longer to your taste.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
If we want to tackle intergenerational fairness, or unfairness, then the older generation is going to have to pay its fair share.
Didn't they pay their fair share while they worked? It's not like they're asylum seekers getting benefits for free.
And let the younger generation learn to save rather than blowing their money on gadgets and partying!
Why should people be exempt from paying their fair share when not working!? As we do not know the exact needs of society for the next 40 years, we cannot structure society so someone can stop paying their "fair share" at 55-65.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
If we want to tackle intergenerational fairness, or unfairness, then the older generation is going to have to pay its fair share.
Didn't they pay their fair share while they worked? It's not like they're asylum seekers getting benefits for free.
And let the younger generation learn to save rather than blowing their money on gadgets and partying!
Why should people be exempt from paying their fair share when not working!?
Didn't they pay their fair share while they worked? It's not like they're asylum seekers getting benefits for free.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
If we want to tackle intergenerational fairness, or unfairness, then the older generation is going to have to pay its fair share.
Didn't they pay their fair share while they worked? It's not like they're asylum seekers getting benefits for free.
And let the younger generation learn to save rather than blowing their money on gadgets and partying!
I'm no lawyer, but just reading the headline on the BBC website did make me think, "Why wouldn't you hand over evidence? You want the guilty convicted don't you?".
I'm afraid that you've not tapped the zeitgeist. One doesn't have alleged victims, one has victims. An assumption of guilt and innocence is baked in. My understanding is that the CPS has proved unwilling to drop allegations through lack of beyond reasonable doubt evidence for statistical reasons. That they appear to have systematically failed to disclose evidence (despite the self-serving denials of the last DPP) hardly makes one think that they have a developed understanding of right or wrong and/or duty to the court.
Telegraph have the same story, reported equally badly.
It’s an area where there have been several recent miscarriages of Justice, and innocent people have had their lives ruined by the way the cases have been conducted and reported.
The CPS sound like they’re trying to find excuses for why juries aren’t willing to send people to prison, even if the Crown can’t provide sufficient evidence of their guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
If we want to tackle intergenerational fairness, or unfairness, then the older generation is going to have to pay its fair share.
There was a time when the older generation took pride in creating greater opportunity for younger people. Now they seem to be telling them to p*ss off and fend for themselves.
Define “fair share” when you know nothing about how much tax they have actually paid or what their current ability to pay more tax is ?
I'm afraid that you've not tapped the zeitgeist. One doesn't have alleged victims, one has victims. An assumption of guilt and innocence is baked in. My understanding is that the CPS has proved unwilling to drop allegations through lack of beyond reasonable doubt evidence for statistical reasons. That they appear to have systematically failed to disclose evidence (despite the self-serving denials of the last DPP) hardly makes one think that they have a developed understanding of right or wrong and/or duty to the court.
Telegraph have the same story, reported equally badly.
It’s an area where there have been several recent miscarriages of Justice, and innocent people have had their lives ruined by the way the cases have been conducted and reported.
The CPS sound like they’re trying to find excuses for why juries aren’t willing to send people to prison, even if the Crown can’t provide sufficient evidence of their guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt.
I can't see what is contentious about this.
If there is evidence of guilt or innocence, then it needs to be disclosed.
It's pretty unanswerable as a long term proposition although it would be economically painful initially. If you visit countries like Sweden or the Netherlands you see a tantalising vision of the kind of benign social democratic future Scotland could enjoy if it was freed from the dead hand of English nationalist nostalgia and stale Thatcherism that passes for politics South of the border. I might even return home from London if I can persuade my other half to put up with the weather. I'll certainly be glad to get my European passport back.
You might find that the politics of the Netherlands and Sweden are no longer to your taste.
Well...
Generally speaking do you think membership of the EU is a good thing?
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
That’s the argument that leads to who else but the sick should pay for the cost of curing the illness. The argument that the elderly should pay for their own care is fine but why does that apply to the elderly and not also to other items of spend - NHS, tuition fees which Labour seem keen to abolish, housing where they seem keen to bring back council housing etc Even on social care, following your line of argument means the elderly should pay their own state pension. My NIC went to pay the state pension of my parents and grandparents.
The demographics have changed, and the proportion of wealth owned by the elderly has changed. NIC from working people is no longer enough to sustain the cost of the pensioner group. There are now many more elderly people with significant assets who live into their 80s and 90s than before, which is great and we should celebrate that achievement. But to not expect that group to contribute more than a previous generation who would have tended to die a decade earlier often in poverty is quite strange.
The demographics have changed but the more basic problems are that productivity has stalled and GDP per capita hasn’t kept pace.
Why penalise just the elderly though who paid for their parents and grandparents. If you want to look at the role of the state, that’s fine, but an eclectic attack on the old who no longer earn is probably not.
It is not about penalising the elderly at all. It is reducing the number of favourable tax and financial advantages the elderly currently have. The triple lock for example is mathematically unsustainable, if it ran for ever all the wealth in the country would end up with the elderly as it protects them each year from ever getting a lower share whilst in some years they get an increase. It was a great policy when it came out but it has run its course now.
Similarly tax on free tv licenses, winter fuel allowances etc are not penalising the elderly, they would simply lead to the same benefit for the average to poorer pensioners, and still a reduced benefit for richer pensioners compared to the working population.
Your first para is semantics. On your second, why should anyone have a free TV licence or winter fuel allowance without means testing. Why use a blunt instrument of higher tax that hits the least able to pay and are most vulnerable hardest.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
If we want to tackle intergenerational fairness, or unfairness, then the older generation is going to have to pay its fair share.
There was a time when the older generation took pride in creating greater opportunity for younger people. Now they seem to be telling them to p*ss off and fend for themselves.
Define “fair share” when you know nothing about how much tax they have actually paid or what their current ability to pay more tax is ?
"Fair share" > Share being paid currently. Increases should be targeted at the those who have the greatest ability to pay.
Until someone is convicted, they are innocent. Assuming that they are guilty because of the nature of the offence & therefore refusing to inspect, let alone disclose, potentially relevant evidence is quite wrong. It is not the victim who brings the case. It's the state. And the state does so after a proper investigation into all the relevant evidence. Trying to stop that investigation on the grounds that examination of the evidence might be distressing is absolutely the wrong way round. An investigation should not be limited on the grounds of distress. It is giving a greater importance to the possible distress of a victim than to the distress of someone wrongly convicted of a very serious offence.
The issues re the possible misuse of a victim's previous sexual history etc are ones which can be addressed (and have been) by rules limiting the use of such material, unless the judge rules such evidence relevant. Any competent investigator should know how to distinguish between material which is confidential but potentially relevant & that which is confidential and completely irrelevant. But that has to be a decision for the investigator to make not the alleged victim.
I find it very worrying that some are seeking to limit the ability of investigators to investigate serious crimes properly, thereby risking such crimes either not being investigated at all or miscarriages of justice.
Misplaced sentimentality & wailing about one's feelings are a bar to good decision-making & good governance. Trouble is we have forgotten how appalling the consequences of miscarriages of justice are, for all concerned, those wrongly convicted, the victims who do not get justice & our belief in the rule of law, so we think that what look like technical issues over disclosure can just be ignored in favour of making some particular group feel better.
It's pretty unanswerable as a long term proposition although it would be economically painful initially. If you visit countries like Sweden or the Netherlands you see a tantalising vision of the kind of benign social democratic future Scotland could enjoy if it was freed from the dead hand of English nationalist nostalgia and stale Thatcherism that passes for politics South of the border. I might even return home from London if I can persuade my other half to put up with the weather. I'll certainly be glad to get my European passport back.
You might find that the politics of the Netherlands and Sweden are no longer to your taste.
Well...
Generally speaking do you think membership of the EU is a good thing?
Netherlands 84% Sweden 79%
But, both countries are voting for some very non-social democratic people, now.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
If we want to tackle intergenerational fairness, or unfairness, then the older generation is going to have to pay its fair share.
There was a time when the older generation took pride in creating greater opportunity for younger people. Now they seem to be telling them to p*ss off and fend for themselves.
Define “fair share” when you know nothing about how much tax they have actually paid or what their current ability to pay more tax is ?
"Fair share" > Share being paid currently. Increases should be targeted at the those who have the greatest ability to pay.
So ignoring lifetime contribution and the fact they paid for the care of their parents and grandparents generation just to spend money, undefined, trying to attract the youth vote with various electoral bribes. How does that fit any definition of fairness.
Until someone is convicted, they are innocent. Assuming that they are guilty because of the nature of the offence & therefore refusing to inspect, let alone disclose, potentially relevant evidence is quite wrong. It is not the victim who brings the case. It's the state. And the state does so after a proper investigation into all the relevant evidence. Trying to stop that investigation on the grounds that examination of the evidence might be distressing is absolutely the wrong way round. An investigation should not be limited on the grounds of distress. It is giving a greater importance to the possible distress of a victim than to the distress of someone wrongly convicted of a very serious offence.
The issues re the possible misuse of a victim's previous sexual history etc are ones which can be addressed (and have been) by rules limiting the use of such material, unless the judge rules such evidence relevant. Any competent investigator should know how to distinguish between material which is confidential but potentially relevant & that which is confidential and completely irrelevant. But that has to be a decision for the investigator to make not the alleged victim.
I find it very worrying that some are seeking to limit the ability of investigators to investigate serious crimes properly, thereby risking such crimes either not being investigated at all or miscarriages of justice.
Misplaced sentimentality & wailing about one's feelings are a bar to good decision-making & good governance. Trouble is we have forgotten how appalling the consequences of miscarriages of justice are, for all concerned, those wrongly convicted, the victims who do not get justice & our belief in the rule of law, so we think that what look like technical issues over disclosure can just be ignored in favour of making some particular group feel better.
The purpose of a trial isn't to prove that a crime has been committed. It is to decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Just because a Not Guilty verdict is returned does not mean that there has been no crime.
Until someone is convicted, they are innocent. Assuming that they are guilty because of the nature of the offence & therefore refusing to inspect, let alone disclose, potentially relevant evidence is quite wrong. It is not the victim who brings the case. It's the state. And the state does so after a proper investigation into all the relevant evidence. Trying to stop that investigation on the grounds that examination of the evidence might be distressing is absolutely the wrong way round. An investigation should not be limited on the grounds of distress. It is giving a greater importance to the possible distress of a victim than to the distress of someone wrongly convicted of a very serious offence.
The issues re the possible misuse of a victim's previous sexual history etc are ones which can be addressed (and have been) by rules limiting the use of such material, unless the judge rules such evidence relevant. Any competent investigator should know how to distinguish between material which is confidential but potentially relevant & that which is confidential and completely irrelevant. But that has to be a decision for the investigator to make not the alleged victim.
I find it very worrying that some are seeking to limit the ability of investigators to investigate serious crimes properly, thereby risking such crimes either not being investigated at all or miscarriages of justice.
Misplaced sentimentality & wailing about one's feelings are a bar to good decision-making & good governance. Trouble is we have forgotten how appalling the consequences of miscarriages of justice are, for all concerned, those wrongly convicted, the victims who do not get justice & our belief in the rule of law, so we think that what look like technical issues over disclosure can just be ignored in favour of making some particular group feel better.
The purpose of a trial isn't to prove that a crime has been committed. It is to decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Just because a Not Guilty verdict is returned does not mean that there has been no crime.
Rape is quite an unusual crime in that, by definition, I would say that in most cases not guilty = no crime.
Mr. Rentool, that's correct. It's also correct that people who claim to be victims of crime sometimes are lying (or even mistaken, in areas where the law is finickity). Just assuming someone's telling the truth is not a fantastic approach to law enforcement, particularly when that assumption of veracity is only on the side of the accuser.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
If we want to tackle intergenerational fairness, or unfairness, then the older generation is going to have to pay its fair share.
There was a time when the older generation took pride in creating greater opportunity for younger people. Now they seem to be telling them to p*ss off and fend for themselves.
Define “fair share” when you know nothing about how much tax they have actually paid or what their current ability to pay more tax is ?
"Fair share" > Share being paid currently. Increases should be targeted at the those who have the greatest ability to pay.
So ignoring lifetime contribution and the fact they paid for the care of their parents and grandparents generation just to spend money, undefined, trying to attract the youth vote with various electoral bribes. How does that fit any definition of fairness.
All the electoral bribes are to the selfish elderly. Travel, fuel and TV subsidies; NI subsidies; etc etc.
It's pretty unanswerable as a long term proposition although it would be economically painful initially. If you visit countries like Sweden or the Netherlands you see a tantalising vision of the kind of benign social democratic future Scotland could enjoy if it was freed from the dead hand of English nationalist nostalgia and stale Thatcherism that passes for politics South of the border. I might even return home from London if I can persuade my other half to put up with the weather. I'll certainly be glad to get my European passport back.
You might find that the politics of the Netherlands and Sweden are no longer to your taste.
Well...
Generally speaking do you think membership of the EU is a good thing?
Netherlands 84% Sweden 79%
But, both countries are voting for some very non-social democratic people, now.
A minority in both countries are voting for some very non-social democratic people who split the right vote and fail to get their fingers on the levers of government.
Proper disclosure of all relevant & potentially relevant evidence is absolutely essential to fair trials (not just in rape cases). Problems with this go to the heart of many miscarriages of justice, such as the Guildford 4, the Kiszko case etc. So much evidence is contained in social media that it is essential that it be examined & revealed, where necessary.
There are two issues: (1) do the police have the resources & the will to examine & assess the material properly, even when they have it? Often they don't & are not good at doing it, even when they try. This is an issue of resources, training& understanding. (2) Do they get hold of
Until someone is convicted, they are innocent. Assuming that they are guilty because of the nature of the offence & therefore refusing to inspect, let alone disclose, potentially relevant evidence is quite wrong. It is not the victim who brings the case. It's the state. And the state does so after a proper investigation into all the relevant evidence. Trying to stop that investigation on the grounds that examination of the evidence might be distressing is absolutely the wrong way round. An investigation should not be limited on the grounds of distress. It is giving a greater importance to the possible distress of a victim than to the distress of someone wrongly convicted of a very serious offence.
The issues re the possible misuse of a victim's previous sexual history etc are ones which can be addressed (and have been) by rules limiting the use of such material, unless the judge rules such evidence relevant. Any competent investigator should know how to distinguish between material which is confidential but potentially relevant & that which is confidential and completely irrelevant. But that has to be a decision for the investigator to make not the alleged victim.
I find it very worrying that some are seeking to limit the ability of investigators to investigate serious crimes properly, thereby risking such crimes either not being investigated at all or miscarriages of justice.
Misplaced sentimentality & wailing about one's feelings are a bar to good decision-making & good governance. Trouble is we have forgotten how appalling the consequences of miscarriages of justice are, for all concerned, those wrongly convicted, the victims who do not get justice & our belief in the rule of law, so we think that what look like technical issues over disclosure can just be ignored in favour of making some particular group feel better.
Until someone is convicted, they are innocent. Assuming that they are guilty because of the nature of the offence & therefore refusing to inspect, let alone disclose, potentially relevant evidence is quite wrong. It is not the victim who brings the case. It's the state. And the state does so after a proper investigation into all the relevant evidence. Trying to stop that investigation on the grounds that examination of the evidence might be distressing is absolutely the wrong way round. An investigation should not be limited on the grounds of distress. It is giving a greater importance to the possible distress of a victim than to the distress of someone wrongly convicted of a very serious offence.
The issues re the possible misuse of a victim's previous sexual history etc are ones which can be addressed (and have been) by rules limiting the use of such material, unless the judge rules such evidence relevant. Any competent investigator should know how to distinguish between material which is confidential but potentially relevant & that which is confidential and completely irrelevant. But that has to be a decision for the investigator to make not the alleged victim.
I find it very worrying that some are seeking to limit the ability of investigators to investigate serious crimes properly, thereby risking such crimes either not being investigated at all or miscarriages of justice.
Misplaced sentimentality & wailing about one's feelings are a bar to good decision-making & good governance. Trouble is we have forgotten how appalling the consequences of miscarriages of justice are, for all concerned, those wrongly convicted, the victims who do not get justice & our belief in the rule of law, so we think that what look like technical issues over disclosure can just be ignored in favour of making some particular group feel better.
The purpose of a trial isn't to prove that a crime has been committed. It is to decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Just because a Not Guilty verdict is returned does not mean that there has been no crime.
Rape is quite an unusual crime in that, by definition, I would say that in most cases not guilty = no crime.
Not necessarily.
There are quite a lot a lot of cases (especially where drink or drugs are involved) where a sexual assault has taken place, but the defendant is a victim of mistaken identity.
Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with the Brexit discussions, but from a betting point of view, do people think we are getting to the point now where markets on Brexit happening before July represent free money?
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
My NIC went to pay the state pension of my parents and grandparents.
The demographics have changed, and the proportion of wealth owned by the elderly has changed. NIC from working people is no longer enough to sustain the cost of the pensioner group. There are now many more elderly people with significant assets who live into their 80s and 90s than before, which is great and we should celebrate that achievement. But to not expect that group to contribute more than a previous generation who would have tended to die a decade earlier often in poverty is quite strange.
Why penalise just the elderly though who paid for their parents and grandparents. If you want to look at the role of the state, that’s fine, but an eclectic attack on the old who no longer earn is probably not.
It is not about penalising the elderly at all. It is reducing the number of favourable tax and financial advantages the elderly currently have. The triple lock for example is mathematically unsustainable, if it ran for ever all the wealth in the country would end up with the elderly as it protects them each year from ever getting a lower share whilst in some years they get an increase. It was a great policy when it came out but it has run its course now.
Similarly tax on free tv licenses, winter fuel allowances etc are not penalising the elderly, they would simply lead to the same benefit for the average to poorer pensioners, and still a reduced benefit for richer pensioners compared to the working population.
Your first para is semantics. On your second, why should anyone have a free TV licence or winter fuel allowance without means testing. Why use a blunt instrument of higher tax that hits the least able to pay and are most vulnerable hardest.
As an OAP who pays tax, I must say I was surprised, and of course pleased, to find a few years ago that I wouldn't have to buy a TV licence any more, and, if necessary, I wouldn't mind paying tax on the benefit. After all, I'd still be getting 80% of the benefit. Same applies to Winter Fuel allowance. Of course, if I was very close to the lower tax threshold I might think differently.
It's pretty unanswerable as a long term proposition although it would be economically painful initially. If you visit countries like Sweden or the Netherlands you see a tantalising vision of the kind of benign social democratic future Scotland could enjoy if it was freed from the dead hand of English nationalist nostalgia and stale Thatcherism that passes for politics South of the border. I might even return home from London if I can persuade my other half to put up with the weather. I'll certainly be glad to get my European passport back.
You might find that the politics of the Netherlands and Sweden are no longer to your taste.
The grass is always greener..... albeit I mus admit here in SE Spain the grass is mostly brown - everything else is way better than blighty.
It's pretty unanswerable as a long term proposition although it would be economically painful initially. If you visit countries like Sweden or the Netherlands you see a tantalising vision of the kind of benign social democratic future Scotland could enjoy if it was freed from the dead hand of English nationalist nostalgia and stale Thatcherism that passes for politics South of the border. I might even return home from London if I can persuade my other half to put up with the weather. I'll certainly be glad to get my European passport back.
You might find that the politics of the Netherlands and Sweden are no longer to your taste.
Well...
Generally speaking do you think membership of the EU is a good thing?
Netherlands 84% Sweden 79%
But, both countries are voting for some very non-social democratic people, now.
Sadly true. But perhaps Scotland could have a few decades of nice stuff like good public services before a neo fascist party emerges to convince the electorate that foreigners are trying to take more than their fair share of the nice stuff. Also worth noting that Scotland is more europhobic than most other European countries, even if it is less europhobic than England or Wales. Also that it has fairly deep-rooted problems that would not magically disappear if it seceeded from the British Union. Including a large fiscal deficit. Independence would be very difficult, but the gap between the political priorities of the two countries is difficult to contain, and the injustice of forcing Scotland out of the EU against the clear will of its people is unforgiveable, really.
coming back to the original story I buy the fact that Farage's BREXIT `party' is over stated. to get the vote out you need an army of canvassers, agents and door knockers - once the campaign comes under broadcast rules, voters may forget, confuse BREXIT with UKIP or just not bother, he's got very little infrastructure, no councillors and therefore willbe lucky to get its vote out
The purpose of a trial isn't to prove that a crime has been committed. It is to decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Just because a Not Guilty verdict is returned does not mean that there has been no crime.
Rape is quite an unusual crime in that, by definition, I would say that in most cases not guilty = no crime.
Not necessarily.
There are quite a lot a lot of cases (especially where drink or drugs are involved) where a sexual assault has taken place, but the defendant is a victim of mistaken identity.
Okay, I was thinking more the Ched Evans type cases - and given the subject is mobile phones, I'd have thought that's what we're dealing with him.
"So ignoring lifetime contribution and the fact they paid for the care of their parents and grandparents generation just to spend money, undefined, trying to attract the youth vote with various electoral bribes. How does that fit any definition of fairness."
Someone who is 60 today might be expected to live for another 25 years at above national average income, with significantly higher care and medical costs than their parents and grandparents. Their parent at age 60 might have been expected to live for another 20 years at below average national income. Their grandparent at age 60 might have been expected to live for another 15 years in near poverty.
If you can't see what is different in these very typical scenarios then not sure we can get anywhere. Funding a grandparent for 15 years in near poverty (generationally not your or anyones particular grandparent) does not mean that group should/can expect the next generation to fund them for 25 years at much higher cost. It is great that people are living longer but the only sustainable way to manage that is increasing taxes on the wealthy (who now tend to be elderly).
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation. The proposals are to pay for it out of taxation by removing the exemption from NI for those over a certain age and other proposals. I don't think it so unfair to expect those with the most assets or income (the older are likely to have paid off their mortgages and to no longer have child care expenses) to contribute a bit more to the expenses of being looked after in old age, through taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
If we want to tackle intergenerational fairness, or unfairness, then the older generation is going to have to pay its fair share.
Didn't they pay their fair share while they worked? It's not like they're asylum seekers getting benefits for free.
And let the younger generation learn to save rather than blowing their money on gadgets and partying!
This may come as a surprise but the three and six a week they paid in NI does not equate to the extraordinary free ride pensioners get today.
coming back to the original story I buy the fact that Farage's BREXIT `party' is over stated. to get the vote out you need an army of canvassers, agents and door knockers - once the campaign comes under broadcast rules, voters may forget, confuse BREXIT with UKIP or just not bother, he's got very little infrastructure, no councillors and therefore willbe lucky to get its vote out
Is there a significant difference, on average, in turnout between 'safe' seats...... seats where everyone assumes, from past experience, that the party which won last time will win this, .......and seats which might change hands?
I'm no lawyer, but just reading the headline on the BBC website did make me think, "Why wouldn't you hand over evidence? You want the guilty convicted don't you?".
I felt the opposite. I felt that having to give the police licence to trawl through all your private electronic correspondence would represent such an invasion of privacy that it would deter many people from proceeding with a complaint.
Is it right that one should have to forfeit any right to privacy before reporting an alleged crime?
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
This is a good example of why right of centre voters no longer see the Tories as right of centre. If being a Conservative means anything it should follow you believe in a low tax economy and look for solutions outside raising taxation to solve problems.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
Should fall on general taxation like education and health. Almost everyone will be old someday.
Higher education is not paid for out of general taxation.
Oh I agree that the old should continue to pay NI and that their assets should be more heavily taxed through increased property taxes whilst they are alive and increased inheritance taxes when they die. But I think these taxes should apply to everyone and not be imposed only on certain age groups, society should provide proper care for its old people and society should pay. Tuition fee are an example of how NOT to do it IMO, not an example to follow for other services in future.
Adding a 6% tax burden onto the segment of the electorate most likely to vote might not be smart.
If we want to tackle intergenerational fairness, or unfairness, then the older generation is going to have to pay its fair share.
There was a time when the older generation took pride in creating greater opportunity for younger people. Now they seem to be telling them to p*ss off and fend for themselves.
Define “fair share” when you know nothing about how much tax they have actually paid or what their current ability to pay more tax is ?
"Fair share" > Share being paid currently. Increases should be targeted at the those who have the greatest ability to pay.
So ignoring lifetime contribution and the fact they paid for the care of their parents and grandparents generation just to spend money, undefined, trying to attract the youth vote with various electoral bribes. How does that fit any definition of fairness.
All the electoral bribes are to the selfish elderly. Travel, fuel and TV subsidies; NI subsidies; etc etc.
Bit unfair to call us selfish when we do not make the rules
I cannot understand why anyone working post 60 do not pay NI throughout their time in employment
Winter fuel allowance, free tv licence, free bus travel should all be taxable
Indeed it was TM who wanted to scrap the triple lock but for McDonnell to play politics with it, when even he must know it is unsustainable
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
Who else other than the old do you think should pay for social care?
My NIC went to pay the state pension of my parents and grandparents.
The demographics have changed, and the proportion of wealth owned by the elderly has changed. NIC from working people is no longer enough to sustain the cost of the pensioner group. There are now many more elderly people with significant assets who live into their 80s and 90s than before, which is great and we should celebrate that achievement. But to not expect that group to contribute more than a previous generation who would have tended to die a decade earlier often in poverty is quite strange.
Why penalise just the elderly though who paid for their parents and grandparents. If you want to look at the role of the state, that’s fine, but an eclectic attack on the old who no longer earn is probably not.
It is not about penalising the elderly at all. It is reducing the number of favourable tax and financial advantages the elderly currently have. The triple lock for example is mathematically unsustainable, if it ran for ever all the wealth in the country would end up with the elderly as it protects them each year from ever getting a lower share whilst in some years they get an increase. It was a great policy when it came out but it has run its course now.
Similarly tax on free tv licenses, winter fuel allowances etc are not penalising the elderly, they would simply lead to the same benefit for the average to poorer pensioners, and still a reduced benefit for richer pensioners compared to the working population.
Your first para is semantics. On your second, why should anyone have a free TV licence or winter fuel allowance without means testing. Why use a blunt instrument of higher tax that hits the least able to pay and are most vulnerable hardest.
As an OAP who pays tax, I must say I was surprised, and of course pleased, to find a few years ago that I wouldn't have to buy a TV licence any more, and, if necessary, I wouldn't mind paying tax on the benefit. After all, I'd still be getting 80% of the benefit. Same applies to Winter Fuel allowance. Of course, if I was very close to the lower tax threshold I might think differently.
And I don’t see why anyone should have a free TV licence or winter fuel allowance based purely on age rather than income. Don’t see why the BBC should get licence fee income anyway come to that.
I'm no lawyer, but just reading the headline on the BBC website did make me think, "Why wouldn't you hand over evidence? You want the guilty convicted don't you?".
I felt the opposite. I felt that having to give the police licence to trawl through all your private electronic correspondence would represent such an invasion of privacy that it would deter many people from proceeding with a complaint.
Is it right that one should have to forfeit any right to privacy before reporting an alleged crime?
Yes, given the very serious consequences of getting it wrong.
It's worth saying that the disclosure rules don't just apply to rape cases but to all crimes. They are an essential part of the whole system.
Imagine if a victim of fraud refused to hand over evidence - emails or calls, for instance - on the grounds that there was personal stuff in there, some of it showing that they were being complete bloody morons in believing the alleged fraudster and that it would upset them, even though some of it might show that the defendant had not done the stuff alleged or not in a way which would amount to fraud. Would we go, aah, diddums, let's not ask them?
The brutal truth is that once you are a victim of a crime, you lose a lot of privacy. That is the nature of the justice system. There are ways to mitigate this and make the loss the minimum necessary. But that minimum necessary must be enough to make sure that justice is done not what is necessary to spare someone's feelings.
Why penalise just the elderly though who paid for their parents and grandparents. If you want to look at the role of the state, that’s fine, but an eclectic attack on the old who no longer earn is probably not.
It is not about penalising the elderly at all. It is reducing the number of favourable tax and financial advantages the elderly currently have. The triple lock for example is mathematically unsustainable, if it ran for ever all the wealth in the country would end up with the elderly as it protects them each year from ever getting a lower share whilst in some years they get an increase. It was a great policy when it came out but it has run its course now.
Similarly tax on free tv licenses, winter fuel allowances etc are not penalising the elderly, they would simply lead to the same benefit for the average to poorer pensioners, and still a reduced benefit for richer pensioners compared to the working population.
Your first para is semantics. On your second, why should anyone have a free TV licence or winter fuel allowance without means testing. Why use a blunt instrument of higher tax that hits the least able to pay and are most vulnerable hardest.
As an OAP who pays tax, I must say I was surprised, and of course pleased, to find a few years ago that I wouldn't have to buy a TV licence any more, and, if necessary, I wouldn't mind paying tax on the benefit. After all, I'd still be getting 80% of the benefit. Same applies to Winter Fuel allowance. Of course, if I was very close to the lower tax threshold I might think differently.
And I don’t see why anyone should have a free TV licence or winter fuel allowance based purely on age rather than income. Don’t see why the BBC should get licence fee income anyway come to that.
Oh come on. The BBC is so generous. All it asks is that the BBC should be paid when people watch any live broadcast by any television company whatsoever. What could be fairer than that?
I'm no lawyer, but just reading the headline on the BBC website did make me think, "Why wouldn't you hand over evidence? You want the guilty convicted don't you?".
I felt the opposite. I felt that having to give the police licence to trawl through all your private electronic correspondence would represent such an invasion of privacy that it would deter many people from proceeding with a complaint.
Is it right that one should have to forfeit any right to privacy before reporting an alleged crime?
Yes - see my answer upthread. If your house is burgled your house is examined. If you are defrauded, your correspondence and interactions with the fraudster - by whatever means - are examined. If you are raped, you will be examined in the most intimate manner in order to obtain forensic evidence. If you are attacked, photographs of your injuries are made available to the court and the jury. If the evidence is contained in your electronic correspondence then there is no good reason whatsoever why it should be exempt from investigation. What matters is whether it is evidence.
The issue you raise of an unwillingness to report a crime because of what it means for you is a valid one, though it does not just apply to sexual assault. Having to be physically examined, having to explain what happened to you - to the police, to prosecution counsel, to defence counsel, to a court, a jury, in open court - is not a pleasant process. You can feel judged; it can feel like a second violation; it can make it hard to put it behind you; it is hard to have what you say challenged; giving evidence is not necessarily a pleasant process.
There are ways of mitigating this: better training for the police, victim support services, not allowing the alleged rapist to cross-examine you etc.
But in the end if we want a proper justice system where crimes are properly investigated and we have a fair trial system then we cannot allow the victims' feelings to become the most important factor. That is to revert to a private system of justice more fitting to a barbaric uncivilised time.
I'm no lawyer, but just reading the headline on the BBC website did make me think, "Why wouldn't you hand over evidence? You want the guilty convicted don't you?".
I felt the opposite. I felt that having to give the police licence to trawl through all your private electronic correspondence would represent such an invasion of privacy that it would deter many people from proceeding with a complaint.
Is it right that one should have to forfeit any right to privacy before reporting an alleged crime?
Yes, given the very serious consequences of getting it wrong.
At the risk of stating the obvious, juries should be convicting only if the evidence before them proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless of wha other evidence may not have been brought to light.
It hasn't been traditional in this country to have police trawling through people's personal information in search of something that might be relevant.
Certainly it would be reasonable to look for that if there were reason to think it existed. But some of the reporting makes it sound almost as though complete disclosure of all personal information would be a necessary precondition of a police investigation.
I really don't think that's right. Fair enough for the police to have discretion to seek more information, and to decide not to investigate if a complainant hasn't been forthcoming. But if it's a question of "Disclose all or we won't investigate," that's right out of order.
Comments
With PP in opposition it seems that as it's become more obvious general election after general election that it could not get back into power, the PP has lost votes. And those votes have split 3 ways (30% to the right and 30% or so to the centre).
So the question is what will happen to the Tories when they next lose power especially if Brexit isn't finalised (and it won't be as we haven't even finished phase 1 yet).
https://twitter.com/EdwardBowman13/status/1122532323193495552
And your first example, diabetes, is a lot more complex than 'lifestyle'. And treating people for it keeps them in the workforce for much longer.
And equally everyone will be old eventually and so will eventually pay it....
I do also think that as part of these changes the young should understand that it makes sense to make as much provision as they can for their old age and that, if you have lots of wealth when you are old, you should not expect those who are poorer than you to pay more simply so that your wealth can be preserved for your children.
Savings for a rainy day should be used when those rainy days come.
Thinking carefully about the burden of taxation and indeed, the role of the state, is perfectly proper and appropriate. Tax is largely based on income not age though so why change.
I have no problem with people using their savings or pensions or even houses to pay for a rainy day but it’s tough for many people to save with the role of the state unchanged and the tax burden on indirect taxes exceeding pay rises - and that’s before you get Labour’s wish list of abolishing tuition fees, huge extension of council housing etc
Why penalise just the elderly though who paid for their parents and grandparents. If you want to look at the role of the state, that’s fine, but an eclectic attack on the old who no longer earn is probably not.
One of the major mistakes of the Lansley reforms was to take health promotion out of the hands of the NHS and give it back to Local Government.
If UKIP/Farage get 30% on a 30% turnout then it means about 10% of voters are very upset about Brexit but we know that already.
I honestly can't see the Euro elections telling us anything we don't already know
Similarly tax on free tv licenses, winter fuel allowances etc are not penalising the elderly, they would simply lead to the same benefit for the average to poorer pensioners, and still a reduced benefit for richer pensioners compared to the working population.
https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1122441243919732736?s=21
SPOILER: He doesn’t say, and he won’t
But this story - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/give-us-your-phone-or-we-ll-drop-case-rape-victims-told-t3lfwp0cl - is an important one & being very badly reported.
Proper disclosure of all relevant & potentially relevant evidence is absolutely essential to fair trials (not just in rape cases). Problems with this go to the heart of many miscarriages of justice, such as the Guildford 4, the Kiszko case etc. So much evidence is contained in social media that it is essential that it be examined & revealed, where necessary.
There are two issues: (1) do the police have the resources & the will to examine & assess the material properly, even when they have it? Often they don't & are not good at doing it, even when they try. This is an issue of resources, training& understanding. (2) Do they get hold of the material in the first place? Sometimes they don't try & the argument now being made that they shouldn't because it would be so unfair & unkind to the victim is pathetic, sentimental nonsense.
Until someone is convicted, they are innocent. Assuming that they are guilty because of the nature of the offence & therefore refusing to inspect, let alone disclose, potentially relevant evidence is quite wrong. It is not the victim who brings the case. It's the state. And the state does so after a proper investigation into all the relevant evidence. Trying to stop that investigation on the grounds that examination of the evidence might be distressing is absolutely the wrong way round. An investigation should not be limited on the grounds of distress. It is giving a greater importance to the possible distress of a victim than to the distress of someone wrongly convicted of a very serious offence.
The issues re the possible misuse of a victim's previous sexual history etc are ones which can be addressed (and have been) by rules limiting the use of such material, unless the judge rules such evidence relevant. Any competent investigator should know how to distinguish between material which is confidential but potentially relevant & that which is confidential and completely irrelevant. But that has to be a decision for the investigator to make not the alleged victim.
I find it very worrying that some are seeking to limit the ability of investigators to investigate serious crimes properly, thereby risking such crimes either not being investigated at all or miscarriages of justice.
Misplaced sentimentality & wailing about one's feelings are a bar to good decision-making & good governance. Trouble is we have forgotten how appalling the consequences of miscarriages of justice are, for all concerned, those wrongly convicted, the victims who do not get justice & our belief in the rule of law, so we think that what look like technical issues over disclosure can just be ignored in favour of making some particular group feel better.
Grr.... Rant over.
There was a time when the older generation took pride in creating greater opportunity for younger people. Now they seem to be telling them to p*ss off and fend for themselves.
Justice isn't something delivered for accusers against the accused. It's for everyone, or it's for no-one.
And let the younger generation learn to save rather than blowing their money on gadgets and partying!
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/48090055
Better not get any injuries....
Putting a question doesn't mean that it reflects my views. It's as much, if not more, about testing what someone else says. There are too many unquestioned assumptions in public debate about these matters, IMO.
Job done.
President Maithripala Sirisena said he was using an emergency law to impose the restriction from Monday.
Any face garment which "hinders identification" will be banned to ensure security, his office said. Muslim leaders criticised the move.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48088834
I'm afraid that you've not tapped the zeitgeist. One doesn't have alleged victims, one has victims. An assumption of guilt and innocence is baked in. My understanding is that the CPS has proved unwilling to drop allegations through lack of beyond reasonable doubt evidence for statistical reasons. That they appear to have systematically failed to disclose evidence (despite the self-serving denials of the last DPP) hardly makes one think that they have a developed understanding of right or wrong and/or duty to the court.
I'm no lawyer, but just reading the headline on the BBC website did make me think, "Why wouldn't you hand over evidence? You want the guilty convicted don't you?".
It’s an area where there have been several recent miscarriages of Justice, and innocent people have had their lives ruined by the way the cases have been conducted and reported.
The CPS sound like they’re trying to find excuses for why juries aren’t willing to send people to prison, even if the Crown can’t provide sufficient evidence of their guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt.
If there is evidence of guilt or innocence, then it needs to be disclosed.
Generally speaking do you think membership of the EU is a good thing?
Netherlands 84%
Sweden 79%
Increases should be targeted at the those who have the greatest ability to pay.
Most of the time, the legal system is used to confirm or reject guilt, not to ascertain whether a crime has taken place or not.
cf Spain.
There are quite a lot a lot of cases (especially where drink or drugs are involved) where a sexual assault has taken place, but the defendant is a victim of mistaken identity.
"So ignoring lifetime contribution and the fact they paid for the care of their parents and grandparents generation just to spend money, undefined, trying to attract the youth vote with various electoral bribes. How does that fit any definition of fairness."
Someone who is 60 today might be expected to live for another 25 years at above national average income, with significantly higher care and medical costs than their parents and grandparents.
Their parent at age 60 might have been expected to live for another 20 years at below average national income.
Their grandparent at age 60 might have been expected to live for another 15 years in near poverty.
If you can't see what is different in these very typical scenarios then not sure we can get anywhere. Funding a grandparent for 15 years in near poverty (generationally not your or anyones particular grandparent) does not mean that group should/can expect the next generation to fund them for 25 years at much higher cost. It is great that people are living longer but the only sustainable way to manage that is increasing taxes on the wealthy (who now tend to be elderly).
Is it right that one should have to forfeit any right to privacy before reporting an alleged crime?
I cannot understand why anyone working post 60 do not pay NI throughout their time in employment
Winter fuel allowance, free tv licence, free bus travel should all be taxable
Indeed it was TM who wanted to scrap the triple lock but for McDonnell to play politics with it, when even he must know it is unsustainable
Imagine if a victim of fraud refused to hand over evidence - emails or calls, for instance - on the grounds that there was personal stuff in there, some of it showing that they were being complete bloody morons in believing the alleged fraudster and that it would upset them, even though some of it might show that the defendant had not done the stuff alleged or not in a way which would amount to fraud. Would we go, aah, diddums, let's not ask them?
The brutal truth is that once you are a victim of a crime, you lose a lot of privacy. That is the nature of the justice system. There are ways to mitigate this and make the loss the minimum necessary. But that minimum necessary must be enough to make sure that justice is done not what is necessary to spare someone's feelings.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1122810353870680065
The issue you raise of an unwillingness to report a crime because of what it means for you is a valid one, though it does not just apply to sexual assault. Having to be physically examined, having to explain what happened to you - to the police, to prosecution counsel, to defence counsel, to a court, a jury, in open court - is not a pleasant process. You can feel judged; it can feel like a second violation; it can make it hard to put it behind you; it is hard to have what you say challenged; giving evidence is not necessarily a pleasant process.
There are ways of mitigating this: better training for the police, victim support services, not allowing the alleged rapist to cross-examine you etc.
But in the end if we want a proper justice system where crimes are properly investigated and we have a fair trial system then we cannot allow the victims' feelings to become the most important factor. That is to revert to a private system of justice more fitting to a barbaric uncivilised time.
The cabinet seems to be on hold until after these elections - I'm not sure this is tenable.
https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/1122802700138237952
Which sadly, some will believe.....
It hasn't been traditional in this country to have police trawling through people's personal information in search of something that might be relevant.
Certainly it would be reasonable to look for that if there were reason to think it existed. But some of the reporting makes it sound almost as though complete disclosure of all personal information would be a necessary precondition of a police investigation.
I really don't think that's right. Fair enough for the police to have discretion to seek more information, and to decide not to investigate if a complainant hasn't been forthcoming. But if it's a question of "Disclose all or we won't investigate," that's right out of order.